FYI - Paulo is looking at an additional patch to address this (and one small patch was also just added) On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 4:55 AM Dr. Bernd Feige <bernd.feige@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Dienstag, dem 26.09.2023 um 17:54 -0700 schrieb Paul Aurich: > > Perhaps the laundromat thread should be using msleep_interruptible()? > > > > Using an interruptible sleep appears to prevent the thread from > > contributing > > to the load average, and has the happy side-effect of removing the > > up-to-1s delay > > when tearing down the tcon (since a7c01fa93ae, kthread_stop() will > > return > > early triggered by kthread_stop). > > Sorry for chiming in so late - I'm also on gentoo (kernel 6.5.5- > gentoo), but as a client of Windows AD. > > Just want to emphasize that using uninterruptible sleep has not just > unhappy but devastating side-effects. > > I have 8 processors and 16 cifsd-cfid-laundromat processes, so > /proc/loadavg reports a load average of 16 on a totally idle system. > > This means that load-balancing software will never start additional > tasks on this system - "make -l" but also any other load-dependent > system. Just reducing the number of cifsd-cfid-laundromat processes > does not fix this - even a single one makes loadavg report a wrong > result for load balancing. > > So, if cifsd-cfid-laundromat must really be uninterruptible, the only > solution would be to change the way loadavg is computed by the kernel > to exclude uninterruptible but sleeping processes. But must it be > uninterruptible? > > Thanks and best regards, > Bernd -- Thanks, Steve
